Back Button

Tutoring: By adults for English language learners (ELL)

Pre-K to 12 Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated April 2020.
Tutoring for English language learners (ELL) reflects additional instruction outside of regular classroom instruction. In this analysis, tutoring for ELL provides reading instruction to students who both test below average on reading comprehension or test below grade-level on reading ability and have a language other than English as their primary language.

Tutoring is provided within the school day to bring below-grade level performers up to grade-level in reading. Students participate in tutoring (either one-on-one, in small groups, or using a peer tutoring model) for three to four weekly, 30-minute lessons for an average of 15 weeks. In the included studies, ELL was provided to elementary-aged students using several programs, including Read Well, Read Naturally, Connections, and Peer Assisted Learning Strategies. The analysis excludes studies that focus exclusively on special education populations. Studies in the analysis compare students receiving ELL tutoring to students who receive no additional instruction outside of regular reading classroom instruction.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $2,353 Benefits minus costs $8,132
Participants $5,544 Benefit to cost ratio $5.54
Others $2,922 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($895) benefits greater than the costs 61%
Total benefits $9,923
Net program cost ($1,791)
Benefits minus cost $8,132

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Test scores
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
6 5 263 0.124 0.112 6 0.050 0.124 17 0.133 0.221
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Test scores Labor market earnings associated with test scores $2,353 $5,544 $2,922 $0 $10,819
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($895) ($895)
Totals $2,353 $5,544 $2,922 ($895) $9,923
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $1,518 2018 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($1,791)
Comparison costs $0 2018 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
In the evaluations included in this meta-analysis, either a certificated teacher, a paraeducator, or a graduate student provides, on average, 33 hours of tutoring to students in groups of three. Tutors receive anywhere from three to thirty hours of instruction. To calculate a per-student annual cost, we used average Washington State compensation costs (including benefits) for a K–8 teacher and a paraeducator, as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, divided by the total number of students served in the studies. For the remaining studies that use a graduate student tutor, we use the 2018 median wage (including benefits) of all occupations in Washington State as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, divided by the total number of students served in the studies.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Calhoon, M.B., Al Otaiba, S., Cihak, D., King, A., & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a peer-mediated program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual first-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 169-184.

Denton, C.A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289-305.

Kemp, S.C. (2006). Teaching to Read Naturally: Examination of a fluency training program for third grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(07A), 2447A.

Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., & Nelson, J.R. (2015). Effectiveness of supplemental Kindergarten vocabulary instruction for English learners: A randomized study of immediate and longer-term effects of two approaches. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(4), 490-529.